Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
we've been talking about a national defense authorization act it has a
couple of habeas provision most notably section ten twenty one which allows for
a gain definite detentions by the military on u_s_ soil
that would be
wildly insanely unconstitutional that's all we've been saying all along
of but you know what
thank god we now have the federal judge behind us u_s_ district judge kathleen
force of new york's eastern district has said
that the n_b_a_ provisioning are would have quote the chilling impact
on first amendment rights
she is not having and what happened was that chris hedges of the nation
institute was by the way
oppose the prize winner
and tangerine bowen who runs the website revolution truth had sued saying
look this is evers widow also our first amendment rights
because it's chilling our speech because we don't know if the for example
uh... bowling goes and does interviews in iraq and afghanistan that the people
that are dissatisfied with
how we're conducting those wars as withdrawal list does
are they gonna say that i am
somebody who is an
as the law says a person who was porque of or substantial support alc eight of
the taliban or associated forces she's obviously i'm not but i think i make
that claim later and here's a really interesting part
of why the judge ruled the way that she did
she has over and over in this case to the government
came just to reassure the plaintiffs
that is obviously how your
you're not going to interpret the law that way
that you will not put them indefinite detention for doing journalist
and the government would give no such assurance
busy and maybe
maybe will put 'em away forever with no trial
because we didn't like the things they were born made
soho what what is at best
crazy house that america
so that they put in flower it legal language which is that uh... camino
assurances for future actions
patrols or otherwise
uh... if they are uh... with associated forces
so the judge said at all hell no that makes no sense
so treat their further plan of state
i_d_ hearing on this motion to government was unwilling or unable to
say that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under
section ten twenty one
plaintiffs are therefore air at risk of detention of losing their liberty
potentially for many years
feel so out of state and individual
could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly sporting
associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so
in the face of what could be an intern
indeterminate military detention
due process
requires more
out solely true that it does
and so she has said that this
practice is
on constitutional
huge victory is absolutely right
uh... and it is an absolute pleasure to see
and judge who saw this as a constitution
and is willing to enforce it and say hey i don't care if republicans and
democrats have agreed to take away your liberties we got a piece favor called
the united states constitution and you shall not trample upon it
so all true patriots conservative liberals
and uh... libertarian should
rejoice at this uh... hearing and and that the result
uh... and
what is and i and my opinion
american hero district judge catherine force
uh... by the way adam smith in just a much
are uh...
and democrat and republican for now proposing an amendment
for that authorization bill saying
that under no circumstances can purses arrested on u_s_ soil
be detained indefinitely
without charge for trial
at camp will leave that we have along the books
there we'd and meant to say hey you know what
we can't have indefinite detentions with out charge or trial
that's the home
point my country
is a constitution that gives us those rights
a dictator or or government help no matter how bipartisan it is a rope what
you call the leader of that government and by the way in the military of that
government
cannot walk us up forever without even trying us without even saying what will
be held four
that's what we fought the revolution for
now this national defense authorization act
specific specifically these provisions
we we've been talking about for a long time on the interest are
hideous
deplorable
clearly unconstitutional
and now they've been ruled that way